Lam

Lam v. Bureau of Security & Investigative Services

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 371·34 Cal. App. 4th 29·40 Cal. Rptr. 2d 137·95 Daily Journal DAR 5017
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 23, 1995C017296California4,065 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sparks, J.

After the Department of Consumer Affairs (Department) revoked his locksmith’s permit, plaintiff Sammy Lam filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus (Code Civ. Proc., § 1094.5) to overturn the Department’s decision. The trial court denied his petition. On appeal, plaintiff contends the Department’s actions were barred by laches, and further suggests that revocation of his permit was unwarranted. We shall affirm.

Factual and Procedural Background

In February 1989, Theresa Randall locked her keys in her car. Her companion called Fairfield Safe & Lock, a company owned by plaintiff, to open the car. Plaintiff arrived on the scene and asked Randall for identification. She showed him her driver’s license and gave him her phone number. Plaintiff then opened the car.

Randall lived in an upstairs apartment in a four-unit building in Benicia. A short time after the locked-car incident, Randall’s downstairs neighbor told her that on several occasions she had heard someone in Randall’s apartment while Randall was gone. She had seen plaintiff going up and down the stairs to Randall’s apartment. She had also seen plaintiff working with tools in the back of a truck near the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.